Schwartz v. State

Decision Date31 March 2021
Docket NumberS-20-0186
Citation483 P.3d 861
Parties Maxwell B. SCHWARTZ, Appellant (Defendant), v. The State of WYOMING, Appellee (Plaintiff).
CourtWyoming Supreme Court

Representing Appellant: Office of the State Public Defender: Diane M. Lozano, State Public Defender; Kirk A. Morgan, Chief Appellate Counsel; David E. Westling, Senior Assistant Appellate Counsel. Argument by Mr. Westling.

Representing Appellee: Bridget L. Hill, Attorney General; Jenny L. Craig, Deputy Attorney General; Joshua C. Eames, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Catherine M. Mercer, Assistant Attorney General. Argument by Ms. Mercer.

Before DAVIS, C.J., and FOX, KAUTZ, BOOMGAARDEN, and GRAY, JJ.

FOX, Justice.

[¶1] A jury convicted Maxwell Schwartz of second-degree murder and aggravated assault in the death of his brother, Joseph Schwartz.1 On appeal, Max argues the district court erred when it denied his motion to suppress statements he made at the scene of the crime and during a recorded interview. He asserts that admission of the statements violated his Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights because law enforcement did not inform him of his Miranda rights before questioning him at the scene, and that he was under the influence of methamphetamine at the time of the recorded interview, making his statements involuntary. We affirm.

ISSUES

[¶2] We address these issues:

I. Did the district court err when it found Max's statements at the scene fell under the public safety exception to Miranda and denied his motion to suppress?
II. Did the district court err when it found that Max voluntarily waived his Miranda rights and denied his motion to suppress his recorded statement?
FACTS

[¶3] Sergeant Schmidt, and Officers Jones and Zwiebel responded to an undefined emergency call in Douglas, Wyoming. They soon learned it was a stabbing. When the officers arrived, they approached the front door and looked into the home through a nearby window. Sergeant Schmidt saw a woman and two crying children who looked scared and heard a man screaming hysterically. While the officers were still outside, dispatch informed them that the call was for a shooting. Sergeant Schmidt announced himself and knocked on the door several times. Max slid across the floor, unlocked the door, and then scooted back into the kitchen. All three officers entered the home with their guns drawn.

[¶4] Sergeant Schmidt testified that he entered the kitchen and saw a body on the floor to the left of the door (later identified as Joe Schwartz), Max sitting on the floor to the right of the door, and a woman named Kelsi Stotsky standing nearby.2 Almost immediately, Sergeant Schmidt asked Max if he shot Joe, and Max told him no. When Sergeant Schmidt asked who shot Joe, Max responded that Joe had shot himself. The other officers then left the kitchen to clear the rest of the house while Sergeant Schmidt remained in the kitchen with Max and Ms. Stotsky. He asked Max where the gun was, but Max could not respond. Ms. Stotsky answered and said, "It's right here," referring to the counter. Sergeant Schmidt asked if Max was on any drugs, and Ms. Stotsky responded he was high on methamphetamine. This was later confirmed by a blood test.

[¶5] Sergeant Schmidt was concerned about Max's wellbeing and asked the paramedics to examine him and to transport him to the hospital. An officer accompanied Max to the hospital and was later joined by a special agent of the Wyoming Division of Criminal Investigation (DCI). Hospital staff sedated Max, and he was later discharged and taken to the jail. Max spent most of the following day asleep. Later that evening, Agents Holder and Carpenter of DCI advised Max of his Miranda rights and asked if he would answer some questions. Max declined to speak with them, so they left Douglas to return to Casper. While on the road, Agent Holder received a phone call indicating that Max had asked to speak with them. The agents returned to Douglas and again advised Max of his Miranda rights. Max said he did not understand his rights and asked for an explanation, and Agent Holder re-advised Max of his rights. Max then waived his rights and spoke with the agents. During the interrogation, Max was sometimes confused and his answers included discussion of demons and a reference to "possession" of the house; however, at other points, his answers were clear and responsive.

[¶6] Max moved to suppress both the statements he made to Sergeant Schmidt at the scene and the statements he made to the DCI agents. He argued that Sergeant Schmidt did not inform him of his Miranda rights prior to questioning him, and therefore his Fifth Amendment rights would be violated if the statements were admitted. He also argued the statements he made to the DCI agents were involuntary because he was under the influence of methamphetamine at the time.

[¶7] The district court denied the motion to suppress. It held the public safety exception applied to the statements Max made at the scene, citing New York v. Quarles , 467 U.S. 649, 655, 104 S.Ct. 2626, 2631, 81 L.Ed.2d 550 (1984). The district court reasoned that the questions were objectively reasonable to secure the officers’ safety because the scene was chaotic, the officers did not know who was in the house or where they were, and Max was on the floor with a dead body. The district court concluded that "[a]n officer walking into a situation such as this would be expected to spontaneously inquire as to whether there was an active shooter in the household." The district court also denied Max's motion to suppress the statement given to DCI. It found no indication that Max was under the influence of methamphetamine during the second interview, no coercion, and it concluded that Max voluntarily waived his rights and spoke with the agents.

[¶8] At trial, the State elicited testimony about Max's statements at the scene during its case-in-chief. Max testified in his own defense and stated he did not remember the interrogation by Agents Holder and Carpenter in response to several questions by his attorney and the State. The State also questioned Max about his statements to Sergeant Schmidt as impeachment evidence. The jury found Max guilty of second-degree murder and aggravated assault, and this appeal followed.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

[¶9] When we review the denial of a motion to suppress, we adopt the district court's factual findings unless they are clearly erroneous. Rodriguez v. State , 2018 WY 134, ¶ 15, 430 P.3d 766, 770 (Wyo. 2018). Because the district court had the opportunity to "assess the credibility of the witnesses, weigh the evidence, and make the necessary inferences, deductions, and conclusions," we view the evidence in the light most favorable to its decision. Id. We review issues of law de novo. Jelle v. State , 2005 WY 111, ¶ 13, 119 P.3d 403, 407 (Wyo. 2005) (citing Mackrill v. State , 2004 WY 129, ¶ 12, 100 P.3d 361, 364 (Wyo. 2004) ).

DISCUSSION
I. The public safety exception applies to Max's statements at the scene

[¶10] Max argues Sergeant Schmidt should have advised him of his rights prior to asking if he shot Joe, and the district court erred when it denied his motion to suppress. Miranda requires statements made by a suspect during a custodial interrogation be excluded if the suspect is not given the requisite advisements. Jelle , 2005 WY 111, ¶ 14, 119 P.3d at 407 (citing Gunn v. State , 2003 WY 24, ¶ 7, 64 P.3d 716, 719 (Wyo. 2003) ). We consider the totality of the circumstances to determine whether a suspect is subjected to a custodial interrogation. Jelle , 2005 WY 111, ¶ 14, 119 P.3d at 408. The key question is whether a reasonable man in the suspect's position would consider himself in police custody. Barnes v. State , 2008 WY 6, ¶ 14, 174 P.3d 732, 737 (Wyo. 2008) (citing Gompf v. State , 2005 WY 112, ¶ 31, 120 P.3d 980, 988 (Wyo. 2005) ). The district court determined that Max was subjected to a custodial interrogation, and we agree. Sergeant Schmidt and Officers Jones and Zwiebel entered the kitchen with their weapons drawn, and Sergeant Schmidt testified during the suppression hearing Max was not free to leave and he informed Ms. Stotsky, in Max's presence, that she could not leave the kitchen. A reasonable person in Max's situation would not feel free to leave.

[¶11] The State argues that Max's statements at the scene fall under the public safety exception to Miranda . Quarles , 467 U.S. at 656, 104 S.Ct. at 2631-32. Max asserts the district court's reliance on the public safety exception was misplaced because Sergeant Schmidt's inquiry went directly to the ultimate question of guilt. The Quarles Court explained "the doctrinal underpinnings of Miranda [do not] require that it be applied in all its rigor to a situation in which police officers ask questions reasonably prompted by a concern for the public safety." Id . It described "a kaleidoscopic situation ... where spontaneity rather than adherence to a police manual is necessarily the order of the day." Id. at 656, 104 S.Ct. at 2631.

[¶12] Contrary to Max's argument, many cases apply the public safety exception to questions by law enforcement officers that address the ultimate question of guilt. For example, in U.S. v. Lackey , the defendant was charged with possession of a firearm by a restricted person. 334 F.3d 1224, 1225 (10th Cir. 2003). The reporting witness identified Mr. Lackey as the person who fired shots at her house, and officers went to arrest him. Id. They encountered him in the parking lot of an apartment building where he was believed to be living and asked him if he had anything on his person that would hurt them. Id . Mr. Lackey asked why he was being arrested, and the officer responded he would explain in a minute. He handcuffed Mr. Lackey and then asked, "Do you have any guns or sharp objects on you?" Mr. Lackey responded he did not, but there was a gun in the car. Id. at 1225-26. The court determined this inquiry fell squarely under the public safety exception because if Mr. Lackey...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • Snyder v. State
    • United States
    • Wyoming Supreme Court
    • October 12, 2021
    ...considered by the court in determining the voluntariness of a defendant's statements. Schwartz v. State , 2021 WY 48, ¶ 15, 483 P.3d 861, 866 (Wyo. 2021). Moreover, there was no evidence presented establishing how law enforcement used the length of the interview or its timing to their advan......
  • Mills v. State
    • United States
    • Wyoming Supreme Court
    • December 13, 2022
    ...(Wyo. 2005) (citing Mackrill v. State , 2004 WY 129, ¶ 12, 100 P.3d 361, 364 (Wyo. 2004) ). Schwartz v. State , 2021 WY 48, ¶ 9, 483 P.3d 861, 864 (Wyo. 2021). [¶36] "The determination of custody, from an examination of the totality of the circumstances, is necessarily fact intensive." Unit......
  • Mills v. State
    • United States
    • Wyoming Supreme Court
    • December 13, 2022
    ...403, 407 (Wyo. 2005) (citing Mackrill v. State, 2004 WY 129, ¶ 12, 100 P.3d 361, 364 (Wyo. 2004)). Schwartz v. State, 2021 WY 48, ¶ 9, 483 P.3d 861, 864 (Wyo. 2021). [¶36] "The determination of custody, from an examination of the totality of the circumstances, is necessarily fact intensive.......
  • Snyder v. State
    • United States
    • Wyoming Supreme Court
    • October 12, 2021
    ...factor considered by the court in determining the voluntariness of a defendant's statements. Schwartz v. State, 2021 WY 48, ¶ 15, 483 P.3d 861, 866 (Wyo. 2021). Moreover, there was evidence presented establishing how law enforcement used the length of the interview or its timing to their ad......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT